So New Jersey Alimony Has Recently Changed, But What About This Thing Called Palimony?

September 30, 2014
By
Edward R. Weinstein

Share

Many people are aware of or have heard something about the recent revisions
made to New Jersey’s alimony laws. Most people however are not aware
of the term called “palimony” or the recent developments surrounding
same. In today’s society more and more people are living together
in family settings without formally getting married. What happens if one
party promised to financially take care of the other party, but then all
of sudden the couple splits? Is that dependent individual entitled to
some sort of support? As a New Jersey divorce attorney, I have been asked
these questions on many occasions. This is where the term “palimony”
comes in and there have been some recent developments in the current case
law in New Jersey that effects same. Let’s explore.

Generally speaking, palimony is a legal term used to describe the support
that an unmarried person may be entitled to receive from their partner
when the relationship terminates. More simply put, palimony is like alimony
for “unmarried” couples. However, major differences exist.
There are certain items that the Court will look at to determine if palimony
may be appropriate in a particular case. With palimony claims on the rise,
the Legislature took action in 2010 with an amendment to
N.J.S.A. 25:1-5 (commonly known as the “Statute of Frauds”), which generally
holds that promises or agreements are not binding unless they are made
in writing. The legislature added subsection (h) to same which states
in pertinent part that no action shall be brought upon any agreement or
promise by one party to a non-marital personal relationship to provide
support for the other party unless the promise was in writing and made
with the independent advice of counsel for both parties. This act was
to take effect immediately.

As expected, the enactment of this amendment to the statute led to some
questions. When did this “writing” have to take place? Would
all claims for palimony made after 2010 have to be in writing or did the
new law only apply prospectively to promises made after 2010? This precise
issue was recently decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court in
Maeker v. Ross. The Court in that matter looked at whether the statute intended to render
oral palimony agreements that predated the amendment discussed above unenforceable.
Maeker filed a complaint in the family court seeking to enforce what she
alleged was the parties’ oral palimony agreement and Ross filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it failed to state
a claim on which relief could be granted based upon N.J.S.A. 25:1-5.

Interestingly, the trial court denied Ross’ motion holding that the
statute is not retroactively applied to invalidate contracts entered into
before its enactment. The matter was then heard before the New Jersey
Appellate Division where they reversed the trial court’s ruling
and dismissed Maeker’s complaint. Here the Appellate Court held
that the cause of action accrued at the time Ross is alleged to have breached
the agreement, which was after the enactment of the statute in 2010 and
thus his promise to support needed to be in writing.

The Supreme Court then heard the matter and ultimately held that the Legislature
did not express an intent for the statute to be applied retroactively
and thus they did not intend to retroactively void oral palimony agreements
that predated its enactment. The premise behind the ruling was that if
an oral contract is lawful when made, it is not rendered unenforceable
by a later passed statute. In other words, rendering a previous valid
contract unenforceable would impair the obligation of a contract and run
counter to constitutional provisions. The Court reasoned that the Legislature
is aware of constitutional law and knows how to write a statute that applies
retroactively, and in this case they did not specify same. Based on these
principles, the Court held that the statute does not retroactively void
oral palimony agreements that predate the act, therefore the court reinstated
the complaint and remanded the matter to the family court for further
proceedings.

The Court did however leave some other questions unanswered, including
whether equitable forms of relief would be available in the absence of
an agreement for support or any issue concerning the applicability of
the statute to palimony agreements formed after its enactment. These issues
will clearly be brought up at some point in the future by individuals
who experience these specific circumstances. Until then, it is clear that
if you had an oral agreement for support prior to the amendment to the
Statute of Frauds, and provided that you meet the other requirements necessary
to be entitled to palimony, you can proceed with your claim for same.

In the event you were never married, but your partner nonetheless promised
to support you, you may be entitled to receive support known as palimony.
As practicing New Jersey family law attorneys we can assess your case
and get you the relief you are entitled to. Please do not hesitate to
contact our firm today to discuss your rights and how we can help you.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only.
Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual
case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt
or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.